Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice - 13(2) • Spring •981-991

©
2013 Educational Consultancy and Research Center
www.edam.com.tr/estp

Curriculum Design Orientations Preference Scale of

Teachers: Validity and Reliability Study
a
Gökhan BAŞ
Necmettin Erbakan University

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop a valid and reliable scale for preferences of teachers in regard of their
curriculum design orientations. Because there was no scale development study similar to this one in Turkey, it
was considered as an urgent need to develop such a scale in the study. The sample of the research consisted
of 300 elementary and high school teachers, working in Niğde province and its districts, selected according to
cluster sampling method. In light of the scales obtained from the related literature and other information, a pool
consisting of 35 items were formed by the researcher. Then, the first form of the scale was presented into the
views of a group of field experts for content validity. In order to test the validity of the scale, the exploratory and
confirmatory factor analyses were carried out in the research. A result of the exploratory factor analysis, the
scale consisted of three factors: (i) subject-centred curriculum design orientation, (ii) student-centred learner-
centred) curriculum design orientation, and (iii) problem-centred curriculum design orientation with 30 items.
KMO value of the scale was found as 0.93 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was found as 3051.295/df=435 in the
study. Besides, the factor loadings of the scale were found to be ranged from 0.81 to 0.45 and item-total cor-
relation values were found between 0.71 and 0.49. Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient value was found as
0.94 and Spearman-Brown split-half correlation value was found as 0.91. It was seen that reliability coefficient
values of the factors of in the scale ranged between 0.89 and 0.87 in the research. Also, it was understood that
there were positive correlations amongst the factors of the scale. The confirmatory factor analysis was applied
on the three-factor structure obtained from the scale’s exploratory factor analysis on a group of 320 teachers,
similar to the sample group of the study. As a result of the confirmatory factor analysis, it was understood that
the obtained values [X2/df=604.02/402; GFI= 0.83; AGFI= 0.80; RMSEA= 0.05; CFI= 0.90; NFI= 0.77; NNFI= 0.89;
RMR= 0.077; SRMR= 0.056], confirmed the three-factor structure of the scale. Thus, according to the results
obtained in the research, it could be said that the scale developed in this study is a valid and reliable scale to be
used both by elementary and high school teachers.

Key Words
Curriculum, Curriculum Design Orientations, Teachers, Scale Development.

Thoughts on the concept of curriculum began cen-
turies ago. The roots of these ideas date back to
Platon (4th century B.C.). However, the foundation
of the curriculum is based on the philosophical
movement of J. F. Herbart (1776-1848) which be-
came popular towards the end of the 19th century.
Although the concept of the curriculum has been
used since 1820, “The Curriculum” written by F.
Bobbitt is considered as the beginning of the curric-
ulum field (Korkmaz, 2007). According to another
view, the use of the concept of the curriculum is be-
lieved to be extending to soldiers of Rome of Julius
Caesar in the 1st century, for competing racing cars
in oval running track. In this process, the curricu-
lum has been used for the “followed road” in terms
of being used in education (Demirel, 2005; Ertürk,
1972; Sönmez, 2007).

a Gökhan BAŞ is currently a doctoral student at the department of educational sciences, curriculum and in-
struction. His research interests include curriculum development, teaching-learning process, and educa-
tional measurement and evaluation. Correspondence: Necmettin Erbakan University, the Graduate School
of Educational Sciences, Department of Educational Sciences, Curriculum and Instruction, Konya, Turkey.
E-mail: gokhanbas51@gmail.com Phone: +90 332 223 4568.
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
Saylor, Alexander and Lewis (1981, p. 8) define
the concept of curriculum as a plan to be followed
to help individuals acquire learning experiences,
while Taba (1962, p. 11) refers to it as a learning
plan. Ertürk (1972, p. 14) considers curriculum as
a “yetişek” and defines it as the “whole of regular
learning experiences”. According to Varış (1978,
p. 18), curriculum includes all the activities con-
ducted by an educational institution for children,
teenagers and adults for the purpose of accomplish-
ment of the goals of both the National Education
and related institutions. According to Demirel
(2005, p. 4), curriculum is a mechanism of learn-
ing experiences provided for learners via in-school
and out-of-school planned activities. A curriculum
is developed for such purposes as establishing a
good-quality education system either on national
or international basis, training qualified human
force to help develop the country and supporting
the protection and development of social and cul-
tural values (Özdemir, 2009). Varış regards curricu-
lum as an operational concept and states the neces-
sity to develop it constantly. In this respect, the first
step in developing a curriculum is to design what
it will include. Curriculum development experts
should put forward this curriculum design before
starting their curriculum development studies. In
this sense, curriculum design could be regarded as
the process of determining which elements to cover
in the curriculum (Demirel).
Curriculum design constitutes the focal point of
activities regarding curriculum development and
evaluation. A curriculum prepared as appropriate
to the principles of curriculum design becomes
functional in practice (Erden, 2000). While prepar-
ing a curriculum design, the data constituting the
basis of the decisions to be taken in the first phase
are collected via the analysis of the needs of individ-
uals, the society and the subject field (Tyler, 1950).
Determining the priority of these data collection
sources depends on the educational philosophy or
model that the design is based on. For instance, if
the design is centred on the subject field, then the
subject field has the priority; if it is student-centred
or experience-centred, then the individual has the
priority; and if it is society-centred, then the data to
be collected from the society are of great importance
and priority (Erden). Curriculum designs are made
up of basic elements that form the curriculum, and
different designs occur when the differences re-
garding the relationships between these elements
are revealed. The basic elements of a curriculum
include (i) objectives, (ii) content (subject field),
(iii) teaching-learning processes, and (iv) measure-
982
ment-evaluation. Curriculum designs are formed
by giving different weights to these elements. It is
generally seen that amongst these elements, the
biggest weight is given to the dimension of content
(subject field). Some curriculum developers give
weight to the dimension of teaching-learning pro-
cesses or of measurement-evaluation. In a curric-
ulum design focusing more on process evaluation,
more importance is given to the organisation of
learning experiences, while in a curriculum design
focusing more on product evaluation, measure-
ment techniques come into prominence (Demirel,
2005). For example, it is seen in recently-developed
elementary school curricula that more weight is
given to the element of teaching-learning processes.
Before developing a curriculum, first of all, it should
be structured based on a certain design approach
(Demirel, 2005; Henson, 2006; McNeil, 2006; Orn-
stein & Hunkins, 1993; Tanner & Tanner, 1995). The
design constitutes one of the three dimensions of
curriculum development, the other two being ap-
plication and evaluation. In addition, design is also
the most important element which puts forward the
understanding and philosophy of the curriculum
(Demirel). Curriculum design is, in a sense, an in-
dicator of what kind of a structure the curriculum
to be developed will have, which questions it will
address, which behaviour and characteristics it will
help individuals gain and which information, skills,
understanding and attitudes individuals will acquire
with the help of the curriculum (Özdemir, 2007). As
can be seen, preparing a curriculum design does not
mean merely gathering the curriculum elements.
The design should have a structure which will allow
helping individuals gain the desired behaviour, skills
and attitudes (Gürol, 2006).
The primary question in curriculum design is relat-
ed to what the curriculum will be based on: Will it be
designed on the basis of the student, the field subject
or the problem? (Korkmaz, 2007). In the related liter-
ature, curriculum design is explained in three catego-
ries. These orientations regarding curriculum design
are: (i) subject-centred curriculum design orientation,
(ii) student-centred (learner-centred) curriculum de-
sign orientation, and (iii) problem-centred curricu-
lum design orientation (Ornstein & Hunkins, 1993).
Subject-Centred Curriculum Design Orientations
Subject-centred curriculum designs are those
which are the oldest and most common curric-
ulum designs. The fact that this approach is easy
and well-known has made it widely accepted both
 BAŞ / Curriculum Design Orientations Preference Scale of Teachers: Validity and Reliability Study
in our country and in the world (Büyükkaragöz,
1997). The reason is that a subject-centred curric-
ulum is designed in connection with the traditional
understanding and culture, and people find it easier
to teach the content which has been traditionally
approved for ages (Henson, 2006). This curriculum
design focuses on courses and subjects in an organ-
ised manner. For example, such courses as mathe-
matics, physics, chemistry and biology are designed
as well-organised disciplines. In these design orien-
tations, information is organised according to the
disciplines, and the subjects organised within these
disciplines constitute the basis of the curriculum
(Saylor et al., 1981). These curriculum design orien-
tations are based on such educational philosophies
as perennialism and essentialism, which are reflec-
tions of idealistic and realistic philosophies onto
education (Gutek, 1988; Sönmez, 2009). There are
four main types of such design orientations: (i) Sub-
ject Design, (ii) Discipline Design, (iii) Wide Field
Design, (iv) Process Design, and (v) Correlational
Design (Çubukçu, 2008; Henson; Korkmaz, 2007;
McNeil, 2006; Ornstein & Hunkins, 1993; Tanner &
Tanner, 1995; Wiles & Bondi, 1993).
Student-Centred (Learner-Centred) Curriculum
Design Orientations
The overall purpose of student-centred (learner-cen-
tred) design orientations is to have the child view and
accept him or her as a whole. An important feature of
these design orientations is the thought that learning
can only be achieved with the learner’s participation
in learning. The student is in the centre of the cur-
riculum design (Çubukçu, 2008). Student-centred
design is an approach that takes individual differ-
ences into consideration (Büyükkaragöz, 1997). The
student-centred design based on pragmatism as a
basic philosophy and on progressivism as an educa-
tional movement (Gutek, 1988) gives particular im-
portance to the needs and interests of the child and
requires his or her active participation in the learn-
ing process. In the student-centred design, there is
no previously-prepared curriculum. In general, stu-
dents are involved in the process of curriculum de-
velopment, and the curriculum is shaped according
to their views (Marsh & Willis, 2007). There are four
main types of such design: (i) Child-Centred De-
sign, (ii) Experience-Centred Design, (iii) Romantic
(Radical) Design, and (iv) Humanistic Design (Hen-
son, 2006; Korkmaz, 2007; Marsh & Willis; McNeil,
2006; Tanner & Tanner, 1995; Wiles & Bondi, 1993).
Problem-Centred Curriculum Design Orientations
Problem-centred designs based on pragmatism as a
basic philosophy and on progressivism and re-con-
structionism -an extension of progressivism- as
an educational philosophy have been organised to
strengthen cultural and traditional values and to in-
dicate the needs of the society which have not been
satisfied yet (Demirel, 2005). This approach centres
the problems of the individual and of the society.
The focal points of this design cover the perma-
nence of social life, social problems, social values,
living spaces and social structuring. Social problems
are taken into consideration in line with students’
interests, their abilities and their needs. The purpose
of the curriculum designed according to the prob-
lems is to train individuals who have the necessary
knowledge and skills to solve the important social
problems (Çubukçu, 2008). The goals of this curric-
ulum design are generally achieved in connection
with social activities (Saylor, Alexander, & Lewis,
1981). There are three main types of such design
orientations: (i) Living Conditions Design, (ii) Core
Design, and (iii) Social Problems and Re-Construc-
tionist Design (Demirel; Henson, 2006; Korkmaz,
2007; McNeil, 2006; Ornstein & Hunkins, 1993;
Tanner & Tanner, 1995; Wiles & Bondi, 1993).
Consequently, organising a curriculum design is
more than simply gathering curriculum elements.
The design should have a structure that will help
students acquire the desired behaviour, skills and
attitudes (Demirel, 2005). On the other hand, the
philosophy underlying curricula put into effect in
a country – thus the curriculum design orientation
– should be in line with the principle philosophy
dominating the society. Everybody dealing with
education should know well which philosophy is
dominant in the society (Doğanay & Sarı, 2003).
The reason is that if the educational philosophy of
a curriculum and the philosophy dominating the
society with the curriculum design orientation con-
tradict with each other, it will not be possible at all
to achieve the goals set within the scope of the cur-
riculum. According to Doğanay (2011), it is import-
ant that especially experts who develop curricula as
well as teachers who apply them should know well
and adopt the national educational philosophy. In
a sense, recognition of the philosophy dominant in
the society determines which curriculum design to
use in a curriculum. Thus, during the Republic pe-
riod, the Turkish Education System was seemingly
based on the pragmatic philosophy and on progres-
sivism – a reflection of the pragmatic philosophy
onto education. However, it was observed that in
practice, there was the influence of such educational
philosophies as essentialism and perennialism rath-
983
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
er than of progressivism (Sönmez, 2009). The reason
was that the dominant philosophy in the society and
the philosophy and approach of curricula did not
agree with each other; as a result, this disagreement
was reflected into practice in different ways. Thus,
during the Republic period, in 1924, 1926, 1936,
1948, 1962, 1968 and in 1998, various changes were
made in curricula in Turkey (Çelenk, Tertemiz, &
Kalaycı, 2000). Finally, in our country, all elementa-
ry school curricula were revised with a new under-
standing in 2004 and put into effect in the academic
year of 2005-2006 (Turan, 2006). It was stated in the
curricula developed that the educational philosophy
of progressivism -a reflection of the philosophy of
pragmatism onto education- was taken as basis. In
other words, the student-centred (learner-centred)
curriculum design orientation constituted the basis
of these curricula. However, these curricula became
subject-centred in the course of time and gained the
characteristics of a content-based (subject-centred)
structure (Acat, 2010; Turan, 2010). Whichever ed-
ucational philosophy or curriculum design orienta-
tion constitutes the basis of the curricula developed,
these curricula should comply with the understand-
ings of teachers who will apply them. Otherwise,
it would be quite difficult to reflect these curricula
into practice and sometimes impossible. According
to Cheung and Ng (2000), if a teacher believes that a
curriculum design is not valuable, it will then not be
possible for that teacher to put the curriculum into
practice on voluntary basis.
A number of studies conducted demonstrated that
teachers’ educational beliefs and the educational phi-
losophy they have adopted influence their in-class
behaviour, their teaching practices and their overall
views about education (Karakuş, 2006; Klein, 1977;
Livingston, McClain, & Despain, 1995; Quinlan,
1997; Wiles & Bondi, 1993; Wooley, Benjamin, &
Wooley, 2004; Yılmaz, Altunkurt, & Çokluk, 2011).
Similarly, curriculum design orientations reflecting
the educational philosophy and educational beliefs
are believed to shape in-class practices and teachers’
behaviour. In theory, the curriculum design orien-
tation constituting the basis of a curriculum reflects
how in-class instructional activities and teachers’
behaviour should be (Livingston et al., 1995). How-
ever, this would not be the case all the time. Thus,
even when a curriculum is developed on the basis of
a learner-centred design orientation yet if the teacher
favours or adopts a subject-centred design orienta-
tion, he or she will reflect his or her own approach
into the teaching processes in class. In the related lit-
erature, it is reported that teachers’ beliefs regarding
the curriculum and their in-class behaviour have a
984
close relationship with their viewpoints regarding
learning (Cronin-Jones, 1991; Crummey, 2007; Jen-
kins, 2009, Lumpe, Haney, & Czerniak, 1998). In
other words, if the teacher has a negative attitude to-
wards the curriculum design orientation, it does not
seem possible for that curriculum to be reflected into
the teaching processes in class (Cheung & Ng, 2000;
Jenkins). All curriculum design orientations are
based on an educational philosophy (Demirel, 2005;
Korkmaz, 2007; McNeil, 2006; Ornstein & Hunkins,
1993). Therefore, curriculum design orientations
not only reflect teachers’ educational philosophies
but also demonstrate which teaching methods and
techniques they will apply in class, which instruc-
tional materials they will use and which assessment
methods they will put into practice. As reported by
Bay, Gündoğdu, Dilekçi, Ozan, and Özdemir (2011),
there are a number of studies demonstrating that
teachers’ practices in class have a relationship with
beliefs and orientations. Therefore, determining
which curriculum design orientations teachers fa-
vour is considered to be important in terms of re-
vealing their educational preferences and their view-
points regarding teaching processes. In this respect,
when the related literature is reviewed, it is seen that
there are many studies conducted to determine the
curriculum orientations favoured by teachers both
on national basis (Bay et. al.; Eren, 2010) and on
international basis (Ashour, Khasawneh, Abu-Al-
ruz, & Alsharqawi, 2012; Cheung & Ng; Crummey;
Foil, 2008; Horn, 2011; Jenkins; Reding, 2008; Van
Driel, Bulte, & Verloop, 2008; Wang, Elicker, & Mc-
Mullen, 2008). In all these studies conducted on
national and international basis, it was seen that the
“curriculum orientations inventory” developed by
Cheung and Wong (2002) was used. Amongst the
studies conducted on national basis, in the study
carried out by Eren, the confirmatory analyses of
the scale developed by Cheung and Wong were con-
ducted. In addition, it should be remembered that
adaptation studies could lead to different results in
different cultures. Therefore, except for international
comparisons, it would not always be appropriate to
use the scales developed in different cultures. Thus,
Hambleton and Patsula (1999) emphasised that
preferring scale adaptation rather than scale devel-
opment would not always be appropriate and stated
that developing a new scale is both easier and more
appropriate if there is no intercultural comparison.
Although there are some scale development studies
conducted abroad to determine teachers’ curriculum
orientations (Cheung & Wong), there is no study
conducted in our country for the mere purpose of
determining teachers’ curriculum design orienta-
 BAŞ / Curriculum Design Orientations Preference Scale of Teachers: Validity and Reliability Study
tions. In this respect, determining the curriculum
design orientations favoured by teachers is consid-
ered to be important in terms of revealing teachers’
in-class behaviour, their practices, their preferences
and their expectations from a curriculum.
Method
Sample
The sample of the research consisted of 300 elemen-
tary and high school teachers selected according to
cluster sampling method from three layer groups
(high-middle-low socio-economic structure) (Mc-
Millan & Schumacher, 2006) of schools in 2011-
2012 academic year in Niğde province. This kind
of sampling method was adopted in the research,
because this sampling method is believed to give
important information in regard of the population
(Büyüköztürk, Çakmak-Kılıç, Akgün, Karadeniz, &
Demirel, 2008). According to Kline (1994) and Şen-
can (2005), a sample group of 100-200 subjects is
suitable for scale development so that the quality of
the sample group can be stated to be suitable for the
study. In the research, 50% (n=160) of the teachers
were elementary school teachers and 50% (n=160)
of the teachers were high school teachers. 42.66%
(n=128) of the teachers were females, 57.33%
(n=172) of them were males. 22.33% (n=67) of the
teachers had 1-5, 20.33% (n=79) had 6-10, 19%
(n=57) had 11-15, 20.33% (n=61) had 16-20, and
12% (n=36) had 20 and above years of occupational
experience. 13% (n=39) of the teachers had senior
high school, 82.33 (n=247) had undergraduate and
4.66% (n=14) had postgraduate level of education.
On the other hand, in order to make the confir-
matory factor analysis, the scale was applied on a
group of 320 teachers, representing similar charac-
teristics of the sample group in the research.
Development of the Scale
In light of the scales obtained from the related litera-
ture review and other information, a pool consisting
of 35 items was formed by the researcher (Büyük-
karagöz, 1997; Çubukçu, 2008; Demirel, 2005;
Erden, 2000; Ertürk, 1972; Henson, 2006; Korkmaz,
2007; Marsh & Willis, 2007; McNeil, 2006; Ornstein
& Hunkins, 1993; Saylor et al., 1981; Taba, 1962;
Tyler, 1950; Tanner & Tanner, 1995; Varış, 1978).
Then, the first form of the scale was presented into
the views of a group of field and linguistic experts
for language and intelligibility of the expressions.
Necessary corrections were made on the scale. The
scale, then, was finalised as a result of the suggestions
of the related group in the research. The five Likert
type (From “Totally Disagree: 1” to “Totally Agree:
5”) 35-item pilot form was applied on 300 teachers.
For the construct validity of the scale, the explorato-
ry factor analysis based on the principal component
analysis method was applied, and then the confirma-
tory factor analysis was used to determine whether
the defined construct was valid (Büyüköztürk, 2007;
Çokluk, Şekercioğlu, & Büyüköztürk, 2010; Kline,
1994; Tabashnick & Fidell, 2001).
In the exploratory factor analysis, 0.40 was accept-
ed as the factor loading lowest limit in determin-
ing whether the items were included in the scale.
There are different views about the acceptance level
of the lowest factor loading in the related literature
(Büyüköztürk, 2007; Diekhoff, 1992; Ferguson &
Takane, 1989; Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000; Murphy &
Davidshofer, 1991; Reuterberg & Gustafsson, 1992).
According to the related literature, a factor loading is
considered as “excellent” if it is 0.71 (which explains
50% of the variance) (Diekhoff), it is considered as
“pretty good” if it is 0.63 (which explains 40% of the
variance), as “good” if it is 0.55 (which explains 30%
of the variance), as “average” if it is 0.45 (which ex-
plains 20% of the variance), and “poor” if it is 0.32
(which explains 10% of the variance) (Tabaschinck
& Fidell, 2001). Therefore, 0.40 factor loading was
accepted as the lowest loading limit in the analysis
of this research (Ferguson & Takane).
As a result of the confirmatory factor analysis, var-
ious goodness of fit indices are obtained (Brown,
2006; Çokluk et al., 2010; Jöroskog & Sörbom,
1993; Kline, 2005; Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988;
Schumacher & Lomax, 1996; Tabaschinck & Fidell,
2001; Thomson, 2004). In the study, as a result of
the confirmatory factor analysis of the scale, X2/df
ratio, GFI, AGFI, RMSEA, RMR, SRMR, CFI, NFI
and NNFI goodness of fit indices were evaluated. To
evaluate the goodness of fit of the defined model, the
primary fit indices were determined: The ratio of the
chi-square statistic to the degrees of freedom (X2/
df) should be less than 2, the Goodness of Fit Index
(GFI), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Normed
(NFI) and the Non-normed Fit Index (NNFI)
should exceed 0.90, the Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) should be less than 0.05,
with values less than 0.06 representing good fit,
and the Standardised Root Mean Squared Residual
(SRMR) should not exceed 0.05 (Brown; Çokluk et
al.; Jöroskog & Sörbom; Kline, 2005; Schumacher &
Lomax; Tabaschinck & Fidell; Thomson). After the
confirmatory factor analysis of the scale, Cronbach’s
985
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
Alpha internal consistency and Spearman-Brown
correlation coefficients were calculated for reliability.
Data Analysis
In order to carry out the validity and reliability stud-
ies of the scale, the exploratory and confirmatory
factor analyses were made. The studies regarding the
exploratory factor analysis were made through SPSS
17.0 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) and the
studies in relation with the confirmatory factor anal-
ysis were made through LISREL 8.51 (Linear Struc-
tural Relation Statistics Package Program).
Results
In this part of the research, the validity and reliabil-
ity analyses of the scale were presented. Firstly, Kai-
ser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sampling adequacy and
Bartlett’s test of sphericity values were examined in
order to test the eligibility of the data obtained for
factor analysis. KMO is used as a criterion of factor
analysis (Büyüköztürk, 2007; Fraenkel & Wallen,
2000; Kline, 1994; Murphy & Davidshofer, 1991).
If KMO value is lower than 0.50, the exploratory
factor analysis cannot be applied (Büyüköztürk,
2007; Fraenkel & Wallen; Kline, 1994). KMO val-
ue is evaluated by specific ranges: (i) “bad” for the
range of 0.50-0.60, (ii) “poor” for the range of 0.60-
0.70, (iii) “moderate” for the range of 0.70-0.80, (iv)
“good” for the range of 0.80-0.90, and (v) “excellent”
for the range of 0.90 and above (Büyüköztürk, 2007;
Fraenkel & Wallen; Kline, 1994; Murphy & David-
shofer). In this study, KMO value was calculated as
0.93, which means “excellent” (Fraenkel & Wallen;
Kline, 1994; Murphy & Davidshofer; Reuterberg &
Gustafsson, 1992). Bartlett’s test of sphericity val-
ue was found as significant [X2=3051.295/df=435,
p<0.000]. As a result of these tests, it was decided
that the exploratory factor analysis could be applied
on the data set of the scale.
Findings of the Exploratory Factor Analysis
As a result of the exploratory factor analysis, it was
seen that the scale had a structure of three factors
with 30 items. Whereas, 5 items in the pilot study
form were calculated to be under the adopted low-
est factor loading limit (0.40) so that these items
were removed from the scale in the study. Thus, the
scale was understood to be consisted of 30 items.
In regard of the first factor, Subject-Centred Cur-
riculum Design Orientation consisted of 10 items
and the factor loadings rotated by varimax ranged
986
from 0.58 to 0.72. Explained variance of this factor
was calculated as 19.978%. In terms of the second
factor, Student-Centred (Learner-Centred) Curric-
ulum Design Orientation consisted of 10 items and
the factor loadings rotated by varimax ranged from
0.52 to 0.75. Explained variance of this factor was
calculated as 18.324%. Lastly, the third factor, Prob-
lem-Centred Curriculum Design Orientation, con-
sisted of 10 items and the factor loadings rotated by
varimax ranged from 0.45 to 0.81. Explained vari-
ance of this factor was calculated as 13.709% in the
study. The total explained variance of the scale was
found as 52.011% in the research. As Kline (1994)
states, variance ratios ranging from 40% to 60% are
accepted as sufficient in social sciences. Besides, in
order to test the structure with three factors of the
scale, Cattel’s Scree test (Kline, 1994) was applied
on the data. As a result of the Scree test result, it
was seen that the scale consisted of three factors.
As looked at the Scree test graphic, it was seen that
there were three important factors. The next factors
at this point are both small and the same in regard
of their contribution to the total variance (Fabri-
gar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). On
the other hand, correlations amongst three factors
of the scale were analysed via computing bivariate
correlation. According to the correlation analy-
sis carried out, it was seen that there are positive
correlations amongst the factors (p<0.01) ranging
between 0.70 and 0.72 in the study.
Findings of the Validity and Reliability Analyses
The items of the scale were analysed via computing
item-total correlations for each factor and the in-
dependent samples t test values were computed to
compare both the item and factor scores of upper
and lower 27% groups. All item-total correlation co-
efficients fell within the range of 0.71 to 0.49 in the
research. Likewise, all independent samples t test
values for the difference between the scores of upper
and lower 27% of the items and factors found out
to be significant (p<0.01). When Cronbach’s Alpha
internal consistency coefficient calculated for the
scale, the following coefficients were seen to be ob-
tained for factors: (i) “Subject-Centred Curriculum
Design Orientation: 0.89”, (ii) “Student-Centred
(Learner-Centred) Curriculum Design Orienta-
tion: 0.89”, and (iii) “Problem-Centred Curriculum
Design Orientation: 0.87” in the research. Also,
the general reliability coefficient value for the scale
was found as 0.94 in the study. According to Cron-
bach (1990), reliability coefficients in reliability
studies values between 0.60 and 0.70 are accepted
 BAŞ / Curriculum Design Orientations Preference Scale of Teachers: Validity and Reliability Study
as sufficient. However, it is generally accepted that
the reliability coefficient must be 0.70 in a lesser
extent (Anderson, 1988; Kline, 1994; Peers, 1996).
When Spearman-Brown correlation coefficient of
the scale was examined, it was understood that the
correlation coefficient of the two forms of the scale
in result of Spearman-Brown correlation analysis
was 0.91 in the study. In the related literature, val-
ues above 0.80 are accepted as good for reliability
(Büyüköztürk, 2002). Spearman-Brown correlation
coefficient is a good method to be used when it is
hard to apply the test for two times or prepare two
equivalent forms of the similar test (Özen, Güçaltı,
& Kandemir, 2006). Hence, in regard of the account-
ed value for Spearman-Brown correlation analysis,
it was understood that 0.91 value can be explained
as “excellent” (Büyüköztürk, 2007; Fraenkel & Wal-
len, 2000; Kline, 1994; Murphy & Davidshofer, 1991;
Reuterberg & Gustafsson, 1992).
Findings of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Con­ firmatory factor analysis was applied to the
three-factor structure obtained from the scale’s ex-
ploratory factor analysis on a group of 320 teachers
similar to the sample group of this study. On ex-
amining the com­patibility index results of the con-
structed equation model, the model-data compati-
bility was found out to be high enough. As a result
of path analysis, χ2/df ratio was found as 1.50 (χ2/
df=604.02/402). In the study, GFI value was found
out as 0.83 and AGFI vale was found as 0.80 so that
they can be perceived as sufficient. In this research,
RMSEA value was found as 0.05. Besides, RMR val-
ue was found as 0.056 and SRMR value was found
as 0.077 in the study. In this study, CFI value was
found out as 0.90. Lastly, NFI value was 0.77 and
NNFI value was found as 0.89 in this study. In this
regard, on examining the compatibility index results
of the constructed structural equation model, the
model-data compatibility was found out to be high
enough in the research. According to the findings
obtained in the research, it was found that χ2/df
ratio was 1.50 (χ2/df=604.02/402) in the research.
In the study, GFI value was found out 0.83 so that
it can be perceived as sufficient. In this research,
RMSEA value was found as 0.05 so that it is consid­
ered as an excellent goodness of fit. RMR value was
found out to be 0.056 and SRMR value was found
as 0.077 in the study. In this research, CFI value was
found out as 0.90 On the other hand, NFI value was
found as 0.77 and NNFI value was found as 0.89 in
the research. Hence, these values can be perceived
as sufficient goodness of fit (Brown, 2006; Çokluk et
al., 2010; Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008; Jöre-
skog & Sörbom, 1993; Schumacher & Lomax, 1996;
Sümer, 2000; Şimşek, 2007; Tabashnick & Fidell,
2001; Thompson, 2004; Yılmaz & Çelik, 2009).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to develop a valid and
reliable scale for preferences of teachers in regard
of their curriculum design orientations. According
to the findings obtained in the research, KMO val-
ue was calculated as 0.93, which means “excellent”
(Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000; Kline, 1994; Murphy &
Davidshofer, 1991; Reuterberg & Gustafsson, 1992).
Bartlett’s test of sphericity was found as significant
X2=3051.295/df=435, p<0.000]. As a result of these
tests, it was decided that the exploratory factor
analysis could be applied. As a result of the explor-
atory factor analysis, it was seen that the scale had
a structure of three factors with 30 items. Where-
as, 5 items in the pilot study form were calculated
to be under the lowest factor loading limit (0.40)
in the study. Thus, the scale consisted of 30 items.
In regard of the first factor, Subject-Centred Cur-
riculum Design Orientation consisted of 10 items
and the factor loadings rotated by varimax ranged
from 0.58 to 0.72. Explained variance of this factor
was calculated as 19.978%. In terms of the second
factor, Student-Centred (Learner-Centred) Curric-
ulum Design Orientation consisted of 10 items and
the factor loadings rotated by varimax ranged from
0.52 to 0.75. Explained variance of this factor was
calculated as 18.324%. Lastly, the third factor, Prob-
lem-Centred Curriculum Design Orientation, con-
sisted of 10 items and the factor loadings rotated by
varimax ranged from 0.45 to 0.81. Explained vari-
ance of this factor was calculated as 13.709% in the
study. The total explained variance of the scale was
found as 52.011% in the research. As Kline (1994)
and Scherer (1988) state, variance ratios ranging
from 40% to 60% are accepted as sufficient in so-
cial sciences. Because, it is not easy to reach a high
proportion of variance in social sciences (Tavşancıl,
2005). On the other hand, according to the correla-
tion analysis carried out, it was seen that there are
positive correlations amongst the factors (p<0.01)
ranging between 0.70 and 0.72 in the study.
The items of the scale were analysed via computing
item-total correlations for each factor and the in-
dependent samples t test values were computed to
compare both the item and factor scores of upper
and lower 27% groups. All item-total correlation
coefficients fell within the range of 0.71 to 0.49 in
the research. Likewise, all independent samples t
987
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
test values for the difference between the scores of
upper and lower 27% of the items and factors found
out to be significant (p<0.01). When Cronbach’s
Alpha internal consistency coefficients calculated
for the scale, the following coefficients were seen to
be obtained: “Subject-Centred Curriculum Design
Orientation: 0.89”, “Student-Centred (Learner-Cen-
tred) Curriculum Design Orientation: 0.89”, and
“Problem-Centred Curriculum Design Orienta-
tion: 0.87” in the research. According to Cronbach
(1990), reliability coefficients in reliability studies
values between 0.60 and 0.70 are accepted as suf-
ficient. However, it is generally accepted that the
reliability coefficient must be 0.70 in a lesser extent
(Anderson, 1988; Kline, 1994; Peers, 1996). When
Spearmen-Brown correlation coefficient of the scale
was examined, it was understood that the correla-
tion coefficient of the two forms of the scale in result
of Spearman-Brown correlation analysis, was 0.91
in the study. In the related literature, values above
0.80 are accepted as good for reliability (Büyüköz-
türk, 2002). Spearman-Brown correlation coeffi-
cient is a good method to be used when it is hard
to apply the test for two times or prepare two equiv-
alent forms of the similar test (Özen et al., 2006).
Hence, the accounted value for Spearman-Brown
correlation analysis, it was understood that 0.91
value can be explained as “excellent” (Büyüköztürk,
2007; Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000; Kline, 1994; Mur-
phy & Davidshofer, 1991; Reuterberg & Gustafsson,
1992). According to Şimşek (2007), despite a scale
gives very good results in the end of the exploratory
factor analysis, it may not give the same results in
the end of the confirmatory factor analysis. Hence,
it was considered the confirmatory factor analysis
could be applied on the three-factor structure of the
scale as well as the exploratory factor analysis.
Con­firmatory factor analysis was applied to the
three-factor construct obtained from the scale’s
exploratory factor analysis on a group of 320
teachers similar to the sample group of this study.
On examining the compatibility index results of
the constructed equation model, the model-data
compatibility was found out to be high enough. As
a result of path analysis, χ2/df ratio was 1.50 (χ2/
df=604.02/402). In the study, GFI value was found
out as 0.83 and AGFI value was found as 0.80 so
that they can be perceived as sufficient. In this re-
search, RMSEA value was found as 0.05 so that it is
consid­ered as an excellent goodness of fit. Besides,
RMR value was found as 0.056 and SRMR value was
found as 0.077 in the study. In this study, CFI value
was found out as 0.90. Lastly, NFI value was 0.77
and NNFI value was found as 0.89 in this study. In
988
this regard, on examining the compatibility index
results of the constructed structural equation mod-
el, it can be said that the model-data compatibili-
ty was high enough in the research. According to
the findings obtained in the research, it was found
that χ2/df ratio was 1.50 (χ2/df=604.02/402) in the
research. It is stated that a ratio equal to or lower
than 2.5 in small samples (Kline, 2005) and a ratio
equal to greater than 3 in large samples correspond
to excellent goodness of fit in the related literature
(Sümer, 2000). Besides this, it is stated that GFI and
AGFI indices equal to 1 means excellent goodness
of fit in the literature (Schumacher & Lomax, 1996).
In the study, GFI value was found out 0.83 so that it
can be perceived as sufficient. RMSEA value equal
to or lower than 0.05 means excellent goodness of
fit (Brown, 2006; Çokluk et al., 2010; Hooper et al.,
2008; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993; Schumacher &
Lomax, 1996; Şimşek, 2007; Yılmaz & Çelik, 2009).
In this research, RMSEA value was found as 0.05
so that it is consid­ered as an excellent goodness
of fit. RMR and SRMR values are lower than 0.05
displays perfect model-data compatibility (Brown).
In the study, RMR value was found out to be 0.056
and SRMR value was found as 0.077 so that it can
be stated that they are the in­dicators of sufficient
goodness of fit. CFI value equal to or greater than
0.95 means excellent goodness of fit (Thompson,
2004). In this study, CFI value was found out as 0.90
so that it can be consid­ered as sufficient goodness
of fit. NFI and NNFI values equal to or greater than
0.95 mean excellent goodness of fit in the related
literature (Brown; Schumacher & Lomax; Tabash-
nick & Fidell, 2001). Besides, NFI value was found
as 0.77 and NNFI value was found as 0.89 in the
research. Hence, these values can be perceived as
sufficient goodness of fit (Sümer, 2000).
When the related literature is reviewed, it is seen
that there is a scale development study (Cheung
& Wong, 2002) and there are also studies (Ashour
et al., 2012; Bay et al., 2011; Cheung & Ng, 2000;
Crummey, 2007; Eren, 2010; Foil, 2008; Horn, 2011;
Jenkins, 2009; Reding, 2008; Van Driel et al., 2008;
Wang et al., 2008) carried out using the scale. The
mutual trait of these studies is that all of these stud-
ies were carried out using “curriculum orientations
scale”, developed by Cheung and Wong (2002) in
the literature. Besides, it can be stated that the same
scale developed by Cheung and Wong was used
both in Turkey and abroad. Hence, it is observed
that there is no scale development study determin-
ing teachers’ curriculum orientations in the related
literature. However, it is understood that there are
some studies on the adaptation of the scale devel-
 BAŞ / Curriculum Design Orientations Preference Scale of Teachers: Validity and Reliability Study
oped by Cheung and Wong into the Turkish lan-
guage (Bay et al.; Eren). In an adaptation study of
the scale developed by Cheung and Wong, Eren
reached psychometric qualities similar with the
original one. Thus, it was understood that the scale
developed by Cheung and Wong had similar char-
acteristics with its adaptation studies carried out
in different countries such as Hong Kong, Ameri-
ca, and Turkey respectively. However, it should be
remembered that adaptation studies could lead
to different results in different cultures. Therefore,
except for international comparisons, it would not
always be appropriate to use the scales developed
in different cultures. Thus, Hambleton and Patsula
(1999) emphasised that preferring scale adaptation
rather than scale development would not always be
appropriate and stated that developing a new scale
is both easier and more appropriate if there is no
intercultural comparison. In this sense, although it
is seen there is a scale development study determin-
ing teachers’ curriculum orientations in abroad in
the related (Cheung & Wong), it could not seen any
scale development study in relation with teachers’
curriculum orientations in the Turkish culture. The
scale, “Curriculum design orientations preference of
teachers” developed in this study consisted of three
factors: (i) subject-centred curriculum design orien-
tation, (ii) student-centred learner-centred) curric-
ulum design orientation, and (iii) problem-centred
curriculum design orientation. Although there are
similarities between the characteristics of factors
between the scale developed by Cheung and Wong
and the scale developed in this study. The scale,
developed by Cheung and Wong has five distinct
factors (academic beliefs, cognitive process, social
re-constructivist, humanistic and technology), but
the scale developed in this study has three factors.
Hence, despite the scale developed by Cheung and
Wong has been found similar psychometric similar-
ities with the scale developed in this study, different
results in relation with various cultures in scales de-
veloped in different countries may come into exis-
tence. In light of the studies obtained in the related
literature, it was observed that there are no studies
similar to the scale developed in this research both
in abroad and in Turkey. Therefore, the scale de-
veloped in this study can be stated to be original,
unique and valuable to use in determining teachers’
curriculum design orientations preferences.
In terms of the findings related with the validity and
reliability studies of “teachers’ curriculum design
orientations preference scale”, it is suggested that
this scale should be used to determine and evalu-
ate teachers’ curriculum design orientations. When
teachers’ beliefs, views, and orientations and the cur-
riculum developed in a country are not integrated, it
is very bad or not possible that teachers adopt the
curriculum prepared in a country. In the end of this
process, teachers may front to different classroom
applications. In this regard, it can be stated that the
scale developed in this study fills an important space
in the related literature. On the other hand, the scale
developed in this study can be adapted into curricu-
lum experts and school principals, and then the psy-
chometric characteristics of the scale can be tested
on these groups. Besides, it is seen very crucial that
a scale development study be carried out on the role
of teachers in relation to the curriculum design ori-
entations. This scale development study was carried
out with a limited sample group respectively. Hence,
it is suggested that further studies in terms of the
confirmatory factor analysis should be carried out
in large sample groups.
References/Kaynakça
Acat, B. (2010). Yapılandırmacı yaklaşımın uygulan-
masının önündeki engel: Öğretmen kılavuz kitaplarına
dönük bir eleştiri. Eğitime Bakış Dergisi, 17, 30-34.
Anderson L. W. (1988). Attitudes and their measurement.
In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology and
measurement: An international handbook (pp. 885-895).
New York: Pergamon Press.
Ashour, R., Khasawneh, S., Abu-Alruz, J., & Alsharqawi, S.
(2012). Curriculum orientations of pre-service teachers in
Jordan: A required reform initative for Professional devel-
opment. Teacher Development, 16 (3), 345-360.
Bay, E., Gündoğdu, K., Dilekçi, D., Ozan, C. ve Özdemir, D.
(2011, Ekim). İlköğretim öğretmen adaylarının program yak-
laşımlarının incelenmesi: Atatürk üniversitesi örneği. I. Uluslar-
arası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Kongresi’nde sunulan
bildiri, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Eskişehir.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for ap-
plied research. NY: Guilford Publications.
Büyükkaragöz, S. S. (1997). Program geliştirme. Konya:
Kuzucular Ofset.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve
ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eği-
tim Yönetimi, 32, 470-483.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el
kitabı (12. bs). Ankara: Pegem A Yayınları.
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak-Kılıç, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karaden-
iz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri.
Ankara: Pegem A Yayınları.
Cheung, D., & Ng, P. H. (2000). Science teachers’ beliefs
about curriculum design. Research in Science Education, 30
(4), 357-375.
989
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
Cheung, D., & Wong, H. W. (2002). Measuring teacher
beliefs about alternative curriculum designs. Curriculum
Journal, 13 (2), 225-248.
Cronbach L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing
(5th ed.). New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Cronin-Jones, L. L. (1991). Science teacher beliefs and their
influence on curriculum implementation: Two case studies.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 235-250.
Crummey, M. A. (2007). Curriculum orientations of alter-
native education teachers. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Kansas the Graduate School, Kansas.
Çelenk, S., Tertemiz, N. ve Kalaycı, N. (2000). İlköğretim
programları ve gelişmeler. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010).
Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik. Ankara: Pegem
Akademi Yayınları.
Çubukçu, Z. (2008). Eğitim programı tasarımı ve geliştir-
ilmesi. B. Duman (Ed.), Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri içinde
(2. bs., s. 132-174). Ankara: Maya Akademi.
Demirel, Ö. (2005). Eğitimde program geliştirme: Kuram-
dan uygulamaya (8. bs). Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
Diekhoff, G. (1992). Statistics for the social and behavioral
sciences: Univariate, bivariate, multivariate. Washington,
D.C.: Brown Publishers.
Doğanay A. ve Sarı, M. (2003). İlköğretim öğretmenlerinin
sahip oldukları eğitim felsefelerine ilişkin algıların değer-
lendirilmesi. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 1 (3), 321-337.
Doğanay, A. (2011). Hizmet öncesi öğretmen eğitiminin
öğretmen adaylarının felsefi bakış açılarına etkisi. Eğitim
ve Bilim, 36 (161), 332-348.
Erden, M. (2000). Eğitimde program değerlendirme (3. bs).
Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Eren, A. (2010). Öğretmen adaylarının program in-
ançlarının görünüm analizi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 18
(2), 379-388.
Ertürk, S. (1972). Eğitimde program geliştirme. Ankara:
Yelkentepe Yayınları.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Stra-
han, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of explatory factor
analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods,
4 (3), 272-299.
Ferguson, F., & Takane, Y. (1989). Statistical analysis in psy-
chology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Foil, J. (2008). Determining the curriculum orientations of
public school administrators using the modified curriculum
orientation inventory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Kansas the Graduate School, Kansas.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design and
evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gutek, G. L. (1988). Philosophical and ideological perspectives
on education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Gürol, A. (2006). Eğitim programları ve planlanması. M.
Gürol (Ed.), Öğretimde planlama ve değerlendirme içinde
(4. bs., s. 17-40). Ankara: Akış Yayıncılık.
Hambleton, R. K., & Patsula, L. (1999). Increasing the va-
lidity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines
for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied
Testing Technology, 1, 1-13.
Henson, K. T. (2006). Curriculum planning. Illinois: Wave-
land Press.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural
equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6 (1), 53-60.
990
Horn, N. (2011). Curriculum orientation of virtual teach-
ers: A basic interpretive study of secondary teachers’ de-
velopment of curriculum orientations. In M. Koehler, & P.
Mishra, (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information tech-
nology and teacher education international conference (pp.
1857-1860). Chesepeake, VA: AACE.
Jenkins, S. B. (2009). Measuring teacher beliefs about curricu-
lum orientations using the modified-curriculum orientations
inventory. The Curriculum Journal, 20 (2), 103-120.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural
equation modeling with the simplis command language. Lin-
colnwood: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Karakuş, M. (2006). Öğretmen yetiştirmede felsefenin yeri
ve önemi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,
1 (31), 79-85.
Klein, D. S. R. (1977). Needed: Educational philosophy as
a guide for decision-making in the public schools. Educa-
tion, 97 (3), 290-293.
Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London:
Routledge.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural
equation modelling. New York: Guilford Publications, Inc.
Korkmaz, İ. (2007). Eğitim programı: Tasarımı ve geliştir-
ilmesi. A. Doğanay (Ed.), Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri içinde
(2. bs., s. 2-34). Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
Livingston, M. J., McClain, B. R., & Despain, B. C. (1995).
Assessing the consistency between teachers’ philosophies
and educational goals. Education, 116 (1), 124-129.
Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (1998).
Science teacher beliefs and intentions to implement sci-
ence-technology-society (STS) in the classroom. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 9, 1-24.
Marsh, C. J., & Willis, G. (2007). Curriculum: Alternative
approaches, ongoing issues. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Good-
ness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factory analysis: The ef-
fects of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 391-410.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in educa-
tion: Evidence based inquiry. Boston: Brown and Company.
McNeil, J. D. (2006). Contemporary curriculum. New Jer-
sey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Murphy K. R., & Davidshofer, R. (1991). Psychological test-
ing: Principles and applications. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (1993). Curriculum: Foun-
dations, principles and issues (2nd ed.). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Özdemir, S. M. (2007). Eğitimde program geliştirme ve
program geliştirme sürecinin unsurları. G. Ocak (Ed.),
Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri içinde (s. 59-94). Ankara: Pegem
A Yayıncılık.
Özdemir, S. M. (2009). Eğitimde program değerlendirme
ve Türkiye’de eğitim programlarını değerlendirme çalışma-
larının incelenmesi. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi, 6 (2), 126-149.
Özen, Y., Gülaçtı, F. ve Kandemir, M. (2006). Eğitim bilim-
leri araştırmalarında geçerlik ve güvenirlik sorunsalı. Erz-
incan Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8 (1), 69-89.
Peers, I. (1996). Statistical analysis for education and psy-
chology researchers: Tools for researchers in education and
psychology. London: Falmer Press.
 BAŞ / Curriculum Design Orientations Preference Scale of Teachers: Validity and Reliability Study

Quinlan, K. M. (1997, July). Case studies of academics’ ed- Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. (1993). Curriculum development: A guide
ucational beliefs about their discipline: Toward a discourse to practice. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
on scholarly dimensions of teaching. Paper presented at the Woolley, S. L., Benjamin, W. J., & Woolley, A. W. (2004).
Annual conference of the higher education research and de- Construct validity of a self-report measure of teacher be-
velopment society of Australasia, Adelaide, South Australia. liefs related to constructivist and traditional approaches to
Reding, C. A. (2008). Curricular orientations of Catholic school teaching and learning. Educational and Psychological Mea-
teachers and administrators. Unpublished doctoral disserta- surement, 64 (2), 319-331.
tion, University of Kansas the Graduate School, Kansas. Yılmaz, K., Altınkurt, Y. ve Çokluk, Ö. (2011). Eğitim inançları
Reuterberg, S., & Gustafsson, J. E. (1992). Confirmatory ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kur-
factor analysis and reliability: Testing measurement model am ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 11 (1), 335-350.
assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, Yılmaz, V. ve Çelik, H. E. (2009). LISREL ile yapısal eşitlik
52, 795-811. modellemesi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
Saylor, J. G., Alexander, W. M., & Lewis, A. J. (1981). Cur-
riculum planning for better teaching and learning. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Scherer, R. F. (1988). Dimensionality of coping: Factor sta-
bility using the ways of coping questionnaire. Psychological
Report, 62, 76-770.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s
guide to structural equation modeling. New Jersey: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Sönmez, V. (2007). Program geliştirme öğretmen el kitabı
(13. bs). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Sönmez, V. (2009). Eğitim felsefesi (9. bs). Ankara: Anı
Yayıncılık.
Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri. Türk Psikoloji
Yazıları, 3 (6), 49-74.
Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güve-
nilirlik ve geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: Temel
ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Ekinoks Yayınevi.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and prac-
tice. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.
Tabachnick B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate
statistics (4th ed.). MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (1995). Curriculum development:
Theory into practice. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Tavşancıl, E. (2005). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri
analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor
analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Wash-
ington: American Psychological Association.
Turan, M. (2006). Yeni ilköğretim programları. M. Gürol
(Ed.), Öğretimde planlama ve değerlendirme içinde (4. bs.,
s. 41-68). Ankara: Akış Yayıncılık.
Turan, S. (2010). Yapılandırmacılığın Türk eğitim sistemi
ve merkez müfredatçılarıyla dansı. Eğitime Bakış Dergisi,
17, 10-14.
Tyler, R. W. (1950). Basic principles of curriculum and instruc-
tion. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.
Van Driel, J. H., Bulte, A. M. W., & Verloop, N. (2008). Us-
ing the curriculum emphasis con­cept to invetsigate teach-
ers’ curricular beliefs in the context of educational reform.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40 (1), 107-122.
Varış, F. (1978). Eğitimde program geliştirme: Teori ve
teknikler (3. bs). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim
Fakültesi Yayınları.
Wang, J., Elicker, J., & McMullen, M. (2008). Chinese and
American preschool teachers’ beliefs about early childhood
curriculum. Early Childhood Development and Care, 178
(3), 227-249.

991
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE

Ek 1.
Öğretmenlerin Eğitim Programı Tasarım Yaklaşımı Tercih Ölçeği

No Maddeler (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1 Derste çoğunlukla problem çözme yöntemi kullanılmalıdır.
2 Derste öğretmenden daha ziyade öğrenciler aktif olmalıdır.
3 Derste, öğrencinin ilgi, ihtiyaç ve beklentileri dikkate alınmalıdır.
4 Okul, demokratik süreçlerin yaşatıldığı bir yer olmalıdır.
5 Okul, günün önemli bir bölümünü çok yönlü çalışmayı ve
disiplinlerarası bağlantılar kurmayı gerçekleştirecek şekilde
problematik çalışmalara ayırmalıdır.
6 Programlarda, eğitim durumları ögesi daha fazla ön plana
çıkarılmalıdır.
7 Derste, önemli olan şey öğrencilerin bilgiyi oluşturmaları ve yaşam
durumlarına transfer etmeleridir.
8 Öğrencinin kendi gözlemleri ve yaşantısıyla öğrenme çabası içine
girmesi önemlidir.
9 Derste bireysel çalışmalardan daha ziyade işbirlikli çalışmalara yer
verilmesi önemlidir.
10 Okullarda, tüm öğrencilerin öğrenmesi gereken ortak öğrenme
tecrübeleri temele alınmalıdır.
11 Programlar, bireysel farklılıkları gözeten bir şekilde düzenlenmelidir.
12 Okul, hataya hazırlık yeri olmaktan öte, hayatın bizzat kendisi
olmalıdır.
13 Derslerde, toplum gereksinim ve sorunları ele alınmalıdır.
14 Derste, konuların öğrenilmesi önemli bir yer tutmalıdır.
15 Programlar, değişmeyen evrensel bilgiye göre düzenlenmelidir.
16 Programlarda, yaşama ilişkin gerçek sorunlar yer almalıdır.
17 Derste önemli olan şey bilginin aktarılmasıdır.
18 Derste, grup çalışmalarından daha ziyade bireysel çalışmalara yer
verilmesi önemlidir.
19 Derslerde öğrenciler sorun çözme sürecini kullanmaya
özendirilmelidir.
20 Derslerde, her konu için ayrı ayrı öğrenme yolu düzenlemek yerine,
tüm konular için ortak bir öğrenme yolu ön plana çıkarılmalıdır.
21 Derse öğrencilerin ilgi ve isteklerini yansıtmanın gereği yoktur.
22 Okulda, öğrencilerin işbirliği yaparak toplumsal sorunlara çözümler
bulması özendirilmelidir.
23 Öğrenciler bilgileri alıcı ve ezberleyicidirler.
24 Öğrencilerin kendilerini gerçekleştirebilecekleri, baskı ve zorlamanın
olmadığı eğitim ortamları önemlidir.
25 Öğrencilerin, bilginin farklı dallarında uzmanlaşması önemlidir.
26 Okullarda, sosyal değerlerin öğrencilere kazandırılması çok önemlidir.
27 Toplumsal değişmede okullar ve eğitim kritik bir role sahip
bulunmaktadır.
28 Derste, öğrencilerden daha ziyade öğretmen aktif olmalıdır.
29 Okulda öğrenciler, gerçek yaşam problemlerine yönelik genelleme
becerisi kazandırılmalıdır.
30 Programlarda, içerik ögesi daha fazla ön plana çıkarılmalıdır.

992